SITE REVIEW: Liquescence

Liquescence

Proficient

Posts: 353

Loc: Queens, NY

3+ Months Ago

Eh, I figured I'd be doing this at some point. Hopefully I'll get some good, useful feedback, positive or negative. Anyway, this my hosting site; I finally completed it today. I know it's not the best site ever, so please let me know what you guys think and what I can do to improve it. Thanks in advance!

http://www.liquescence.net

SharkShark

Guru

Posts: 1013

Loc: Living In Today

3+ Months Ago

Very nice layout. :D Really, I didnt have any problems at all with the site. Everything seems to run smoothly and you explained your services very well. No negative comments on my end

digitalMedia

a.k.a. dM

Posts: 5146

Loc: SC-USA

3+ Months Ago

I think you could shave a lot of file size off your header graphic by slicing it up into GIF's and JPG's where appropriate. That way you could just put your links in the page, instead of managing an image-map with a JS.

I also see you're including a JS file with some Macromedia image management functions...I don't see where the rollovers are happening, though.

Aesthetically, it's not my taste, but that is PURELY subjective, of course. I would recommend easing off of the bevels and drop-shadows a little bit, though.

HTH!

rtm223

Mastermind

Posts: 1855

Loc: Uk

3+ Months Ago

I know no-one ever cares but I will keep saying it:

further to dm's comment on slicing images, you could easily reduce filesize tremendously by removing the text from the image file and adding it with css. you can even do some nifty tricks and add the drop shodow without resorting to non-standards filters.

I'm not keen on the link hover effects with the overscore or whatever it's called. It just looks weird to me. I also would not use an underline to indicate emphisis on a page - people are far to used to seeing underscore=link, bold is more appropriate for a website.

other than that, the layout is relatively clean and clear. Some pages did take a little long to load up the graphics. I would not like to visit the site on dial up.

One edit you might which to make is the 2.8mHz processors on the front page.

Liquescence

Proficient

Posts: 353

Loc: Queens, NY

3+ Months Ago

digitalMedia,

Hmm... I know how to slice images, but can you explain to me why that helps the file size? 'Cause honestly, I'm a bit lost there. As for the rollovers, I used them at first, but took them out when I redesigned the website, and didn't remember to take them out. I know the 3d text is a bit much.... luckily I took out 70% of them before putting the site up for review lol.

rtm223,

I did originally use text and css for the menu, but I wanted a nice font, and most people don't have it, so I made it into an image map. Hmm... I don't like the overline much either; it's just that all my sites are the same when it comes to links and I wanted something...different. I'll tone oown the underlining a bit.

rtm223 wrote:

One edit you might which to make is the 2.8mHz processors on the front page.

Eeek... I could've sworn I took that out... might've been the FAQ page though. I'll definitely fix that soon!

Thank you for the comments/suggestion guys! I really, really appreciate it!

digitalMedia

a.k.a. dM

Posts: 5146

Loc: SC-USA

3+ Months Ago

Liquescence wrote:

digitalMedia,

Hmm... I know how to slice images, but can you explain to me why that helps the file size?

I'm talking about the differences between GIF's and JPG's. GIF's are best used for images that are comprised of solid colors, where JPG's are best for photographic type images (lots of little gradients). Of course, PNG's are always an option too, but the compression techniques are a bit different because of varying bit-depths and such.

In your header, the purely photographic part, the typewriter keys, would compress best as a JPG. The title, "Liquescence Hosting", and the menu items would likely be best compressed as GIF's.

So, your header graphic alone is 56k. That's pretty big. My rule off thumb is 40 to 50k for a front page and ALL it's dependencies. Now if it were me, I would have designed the site in accordance with RTM's advice about using text, but I'm a zealot about file size and efficiency.

Perhaps you might want to consider some META tags for picking up some of the smaller search engines?

Keep up the good work,

whos_wee_dug?

Liquescence

Proficient

Posts: 353

Loc: Queens, NY

3+ Months Ago

Hmm... so header graphic to jpg, header to gif (i should position it over the typewriter keys using css right?), and menu to text. got it. Thanks. I'll be fixing it up...after finals week lol.

xml

Newbie

Posts: 6

3+ Months Ago

The site ok, I'd suggest using some more flowing CSS styles however.

The only other thing I can pick at is the tiny font used for the copyright notice!

this213

Guru

Posts: 1259

Loc: ./

3+ Months Ago

I like it. It neat, clean and well thought out. I'd probably expand the table out a bit more, but then I also realise not everyone has Star-Trek-main-viewscreen sized monitors too.

Your copyright notice is barely legible though, you might want to increase the point size a bit. In fact, you might want to up the text size across most of the site. Some of those pages are pretty wordy (especially the support page) and if someone were to have to dig into it, their eyes would probably be hurting by the time they got done (unless they actually were viewing it at 640X480).

gladden

Beginner

Posts: 44

3+ Months Ago

Hello,

I found your site easy to navigate and follow the information. Of course I’m not an html guru, I wish I were, so I cannot comment on the technical aspects. The layout as I said is very efficient.